Rick Gosselin draft grade: Chiefs get A+

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

I agree with everything you said for the most part. (Except in a 2 TE set you usually only have 1WR so thats an extra man on the field) I agree he will be useful as a situational player, all of those things you mentioned are what I consider to be situational. I am not saying he wont be good for those roles, what I am saying is he won't be an every down (67% of downs 1-3) type of player....I think we shouldve drafted a non-situational player with 2a.

All of that being said, I would love to be wrong...

A lot of people would have been satisfied with taking a slot receiver like Tate. I would have. And McCluster can give you a LOT more reps than Tate. And the difference between the two is that McCluster gives the defense some pause as to whether a play could be a run or a pass. A lot of teams have been running 4-WR sets. There's a distinct difference between running that play out of an empty backfield with no RBs, and having a 3-WR set with a RB who motions into a 4th WR slot. Same goes with any running down.

So again, I think you're ruling out multiple instances where he lines up as a RB then motions into the slot. And 2-3 years down the road when he's playing a lot of snaps as the primary RB, when Charles needs a rest.

He could potentially get about the amount of reps as a slot receiver + #2 back. Not 67%. But a pretty hefty workload.

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

So again, I think you're ruling out multiple instances where he lines up as a RB then motions into the slot.

No, I took those into account when I said I think he would see much less than 67% of the snaps actually.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

And 2-3 years down the road when he's playing a lot of snaps as the primary RB, when Charles needs a rest.

Maybe..but that isn't what I was talking about...It is a huge IF, as the average RB's career is only about 3 years or so anyhow.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

He could potentially get about the amount of reps as a slot receiver + #2 back. Not 67%. But a pretty hefty workload.

He isn't the #2 back though. We have Jones and Charles as the 1 and 2. He is the #3. Not sure what your definition of hefty is....but, 50% of the snaps is pretty hefty in my eyes, and I doubt he will even get that. If he does, it will be a good pick.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

No, I took those into account when I said I think he would see much less than 67% of the snaps actually.

Maybe..but that isn't what I was talking about...It is a huge IF, as the average RB's career is only about 3 years or so anyhow.

I think you're talking about a RB like Adrian Peterson or Priest Holmes. AP takes way too much punishment as a back and Priest played in a league where 350+ carries was the norm.

He isn't the #2 back though. We have Jones and Charles as the 1 and 2. He is the #3. Not sure what your definition of hefty is....but, 50% of the snaps is pretty hefty in my eyes, and I doubt he will even get that. If he does, it will be a good pick.

Usually, RBs are slowly introduced to the league to get used to NFL workloads. Like when AP was limited to only 240 carries his rookie year. Jones has 1-2 years here max. In 2 years, I think McCluster will take on a Sproles role, where he takes a pretty decent amount of carries per game. If the goal is to prepare for 3 years from now, rather than trying to win today, that's a valuable asset for the Chiefs.